Replacement dwelling at 101 Ebdon Road, Weston-super-Mare

What was proposed

The application sought a part-retrospective replacement dwelling and permission for a wall alongside the front boundary.

“In October 2023, a planning application for alterations and extensions to the dwelling was withdrawn. A second application also for alterations and extensions to the existing bungalow with associated works was approved in January 2024. A separate application approved in October 2023 related to the erection of a boundary wall.”

“Full permission is sought for the erection of 1no replacement dwelling and seeks planning consent for a wall alongside the front boundary. The application is part retrospective.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is in an established residential area, with mainly two-storey homes nearby and the plot sitting relatively high above the road.

“The application site is located on the western side of Ebdon Road, close to its junction with Southdown, within an established residential area. The surrounding development is residential dwellings predominantly two-storey in form, with the application site occupying a relatively elevated position in relation to Ebdon Road.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and enforcement

Earlier applications approved alterations and a boundary wall, but construction differed from the approved plans and a replacement dwelling application was submitted to regularise it.

“Following site visits by North Somerset Council’s Enforcement team, it was agreed with the applicant that a further planning application would be required to address elements of the approved development that had been constructed otherwise than in accordance with the approved plans. These matters related primarily to the overall scale of the extensions as built, and the height and form of the boundary wall.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was acceptable in principle and would not harm local character, neighbours, parking or highway safety.

“The proposed replacement dwelling is acceptable in principle, being located within the defined settlement boundary of Weston-super-Mare. The development would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the surrounding area, the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, or highway safety, and would provide adequate on-site parking.”

“Consequently, the proposal accords with Policy CS14 of the North Somerset Core Strategy, Policies DM24, DM28, DM32 and DM37 of the Development Management Policies, and relevant guidance within the Residential Design Guide SPD and the North Somerset Parking Standards SPD.”

Officer report

What people said

Fifty-nine objections raised concerns about overdevelopment, design, privacy, highway safety, landscaping, drainage, retrospective work and the building’s possible use.

“Principle of development / site status Concerns were raised regarding the description of the site as brownfield land and whether the nature and scale of redevelopment is appropriate for the plot. • Character and appearance Concerns were raised regarding the design, materials, boundary treatments and overall size, form, scale, height, bulk, mass and form of the development, which are considered not to reflect the established character of the area.”

“) • Residential amenity – privacy and outlook Concerns were raised regarding overlooking from upper-floor and elevated windows into neighbouring gardens and habitable rooms and concerns regarding the effect of the building’s height, footprint and raised ground levels on neighbouring outlook and sense of enclosure.”

Officer report

The town council’s objection

Weston Town Council objected because of overdevelopment, the wall’s location and size, and an alleged breach of planning agreements.

“Weston Town Council: Object on the grounds of over development, location and size of wall and breach of planning agreements.”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

A local resident spoke against the application, the applicant spoke in support, and the ward member addressed the committee.

Members’ discussion

Members debated the proposal and asked questions about changes to the boundary wall, windows and the property’s reconfiguration.

“Members debated the application and asked questions regarding the proposed changes to the boundary wall, windows and the re-configuration of the property.”

Minutes

The vote

A refusal proposal was lost because it had no seconder, before members resolved to approve the application.

“Proposal: That the application be REFUSED due to the alteration to the boundary wall and not following established planning rules.”

“Due to a lack of seconder, this proposal was LOST.”

Minutes

The decision and conditions

The application was approved with plans conditions and a requirement to reduce and modify the boundary wall before works recommenced.

“Resolved: That the application be APPROVED (for the reasons stated in the report and the published Update Sheet) subject to the following conditions and any other additional or amended conditions as may be required in consultation with the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson and local ward member:”

“Works to the replacement dwelling hereby approved shall not re-commence until the boundary wall has been reduced in height and modified in full accordance with the approved drawing number EBD101/24/103 Rev A.”

Minutes